Functional Outcomes of Patients with Amputation Receiving Chronic Dialysis for End-Stage Renal Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the rehabilitation length of stay and functional outcome of patients with amputation on chronic dialysis with a similar group of patients not on dialysis. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. Twenty-five patients with amputations on chronic dialysis and 25 nonrenal controls with amputation were included in the two groups. Primary outcome measures were Functional Independence Measure scores through discharge and follow-up, the percentage of patients fitted with a prosthesis, the number of patients able to ambulate independently indoors or outdoors or operate a wheelchair, and acute and rehabilitation length of stay for inpatients. Comorbidities and complications in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients with amputation on chronic dialysis vs. those without renal disease were also evaluated. RESULTS: Eleven women and 14 men were included in each group. The study group patients were younger than non-ESRD controls (54 ± 12 and 61 ± 11 yrs, respectively; P = 0.05). No significant differences were found between the groups in sex, race, amputation etiology, or comorbidities, except minor amputations of toes and fingers, which were performed more often in the ESRD group compared with the non-ESRD group (14 and 2, respectively; P = 0.0003). Functional Independence Measure score was higher in the non-ESRD group on discharge (112.1 ± 7.6 vs. 107.5 ± 7.7; P = 0.04) and follow-up (111.3 ± 10.7 vs. 104.4 ± 8.7; P = 0.02). The number of patients able to ambulate indoors and outdoors or operate wheelchair independently on discharge was not statistically different between the groups. Length of stay was higher in the ESRD group (153 ± 67 vs. 105 ± 42 days; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with limb amputations on chronic dialysis had significantly longer length of stay and lower Functional Independence Measure scores compared with the non-ESRD group. It is suggested that current practices may need to be adjusted to accommodate the complex rehabilitation needs of the ESRD patient population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".